WHITE GUM AIR PARK - Shire of York

Rochdale Holdings Pty Ltd A.B.N. 85 009 049 067 trading as:

HERRING STORER ACOUSTICS Suite 34, 11 Preston Street, Como, W.A. 6152 P.O. Box 219, Como, W.A. 6952 Telephone: (08) 9367 6200 Facsimile: (08) 9474 2579 Email: [email protected]

WHITE GUM AIR PARK

LOT 2308 CAMERON ROAD, MALEBELLING

ACOUSTIC ASSESSMENT

JULY 2017

OUR REFERENCE: 22023‐2‐17117

Herring Storer Acoustics

DOCUMENT CONTROL PAGE

ACOUSTIC ASSESSMENT AIR PARK

CAMERON ROAD, MALEBELLING

Job No: 17117

Document Reference: 22023‐2‐17117

FOR

WHITE GUM AIR PARK

DOCUMENT INFORMATION

Author: Paul Daly Checked By: Tim Reynolds

Date of Issue: 25 July 2017

REVISION HISTORY

Revision Description Date Author Checked

1 Client Comments 24/08/2017 PLD

DOCUMENT DISTRIBUTION

Copy No. Version No. Destination Hard Copy Electronic Copy

1 1

David Maiorana [email protected] cc Andrew Cotterell Email: [email protected]

1 2

David Maiorana [email protected] cc Andrew Cotterell Email: [email protected]


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this study was to assess noise emissions of aircraft using the White Gum Air Park facility. The assessment has been requested by the Shire of York and relates to an application currently under assessment for the construction of additional aircraft hangers at the facility. To determine noise received at the neighbouring residence from the White Gum Air Park, noise emissions from aircraft operating at the park have been based on the results of noise modelling, which has been calibrated against hand held observed noise level measurements. From the literature examined, there is no criteria that specifically applies to the assessment or management of aircraft noise from a facility such as the White Gum Air Park. In Western Australia, the assessment of noise is undertaken using either the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 or State Planning Policy 5.4 Road and Rail Transport Noise and Freight Considerations in Land Use Planning. Both the regulations and policy specifically exclude assessment of aircraft noise. Assessment of aircraft noise for airports such as Perth and Jandakot airport are assessed and managed under State Planning Policy 5.1 Land use planning in the vicinity of Perth Airport and; State Planning Policy 5.3 Land Use Planning in the Vicinity of Jandakot Airport. Both these policies use the Commonwealth Airports Act 1996 as a basis due to the airports being situated on Commonwealth land. As the White Gum Air Park is located on private land, the act and policies do not apply. Australian Standard (AS) 2021:2015 Acoustics ‐ Aircraft noise intrusion ‐ Building siting and construction provides criteria for suitability of building sites. The standard is concerned with land use planning and building treatments in the vicinity of an airport. The objective is to provide guidance to regional and local authorities, organisations, communities and others associated with urban and regional planning and building development on the siting and construction of new buildings against aircraft noise intrusion and on the acoustical adequacy of existing buildings near aerodromes. It is noted that the standard is not intended to be applied for the purpose of assessing the effects of noise from aircraft. AS2021:2015 generally uses the relevant Australian Noise Exposure Forecast (ANEF) for consideration of building sites as to being “acceptable”, “unacceptable “or “conditionally acceptable”. Where aerodrome usage (such as the White Gum Air Park) is confined to a small number of civil, non‐jet aircraft movements the production of an ANEF chart may not be justified and is unlikely to occur. In these cases, AS2021:2015 provides alternative noise metrics, which are contained in Appendix E of the standard and are summarised below in Table E1.

TABLE E1 – BUILDING SITE ACCEPTABILITY BASED ON AIRCRAFT NOISE LEVELS*

Number of Flights Per Day Aircraft Noise Level Expected at Building Site dB(A)

Acceptable Conditionally Acceptable Unacceptable

House, home unit, flat, caravan park, school, university, hospital, nursing home

>30 <70 70‐75 >75

15‐30 <80 80‐85 >85

<15 <90 90‐95 >95

*The values in Table 1 are based on a small aerodrome with a small number of civil, non‐jet aircraft movements. They should not be used in any other circumstance.


Based on the above information, the appropriate criteria for this assessment has been based on the recommendations contained in AS2021:2015. As the White Gum Air Park, has around 15‐30 flights per day (on the busiest day), the acceptable noise level for surround buildings types (house) would be <80 dB(A) LAmax and conditionally acceptable 80‐85 dB(A) LAmax. The nearest noise sensitive premises (highly noise sensitive) is located approximately 100m from the centre of runway 09 towards the north. At this location, the LAmax noise level of the worst case (take‐off) operation has been determined to be 71 dB(A) for the most common aircraft type using the runway. For ground activities, such as aircraft taxiing around site, the LAmax noise level is 47 at the same premise. Even though noise emanating from aircraft using the air park complies with the stated applicable criteria, to formalise the operations of the White Gum Air Park, it is recommended that a management plan (which includes noise) be developed. This management plan provides a level of security to the facilities operations and to other stakeholders which may be affected by the operations.


CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION 1

2. BACKGROUND 1

3. CRITERIA 1

4. MEASUREMENTS 2

5. MEASURED RESULTS 6 5.1 OBSERVED NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS 6 5.2 CONTINUOUS NOISE MONITORING 7

6. MODELLING 8

7. DISCUSSION 9

8. CONCLUSION 10

APPENDICIES

A Locality Plan

B Continuous Noise Monitoring Results Observed Noise Measurement Results B Noise Contour Plots

Herring Storer Acoustics Our Ref: 22023‐1‐17117 1

1. INTRODUCTION

Herring Storer Acoustics was commissioned by The White Gum Air Park on behalf of the owners, Andrew and Mary Cotterell, to carry out a noise study for the operations located at Lot 2308 Cameron Road, Malebelling (See Figure A2 in Appendix A for Study Area), with regards to noise emissions from aircraft using the park. This assessment is provided to support the regulatory approvals processes sought from the Shire of York for the construction of additional hangers at the facility. As part of the study, the following was carried out:

• Identification of individual operations and the associated noise levels.

• Measurement of aircraft and continuous monitoring of existing operational noise levels. • Predictive noise modelling of the noise emissions associated with the air park operations. • Assess the noise levels at the nearest surrounding noise sensitive premises.

For information, a locality plan is shown in Appendix A.

2. BACKGROUND Runway 09‐27 has been in active use for over 37 years. Whitegum Farm have used runway 09‐27 for 17 years (with permission of property owners during the entire period). There has not been complaint in the past 17 years in regards to the operations, including the later 10 years where SkySports Flying School have operated from both runways. Hours of possible operation are sunrise to sunset. The runways and facilities are used by various visiting aircraft including agricultural crop spraying aircraft when in season.

3. CRITERIA

From the literature examined, there is no criteria that specifically applies to the assessment or management of aircraft noise from a facility such as the White Gum Air Park. In Western Australia, the assessment of noise is undertaken using either the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 or State Planning Policy 5.4 Road and Rail Transport Noise and Freight Considerations in Land Use Planning. Both the regulations and policy specifically exclude assessment of aircraft noise. Assessment of aircraft noise for airports such as Perth and Jandakot airport are assessed and managed under State Planning Policy 5.1 Land use planning in the vicinity of Perth Airport and; State Planning Policy 5.3 Land Use Planning in the Vicinity of Jandakot Airport. Both these policies use the Commonwealth Airports Act 1996 as a basis due to the airports being situated on Commonwealth land. As the White Gum Air Park is located on private land, the act and policies do not apply. Australian Standard (AS) 2021:2015 Acoustics ‐ Aircraft noise intrusion ‐ Building siting and construction provides criteria for suitability of building sites. The standard is concerned with land use planning and building treatments in the vicinity of an airport. The objective is to provide guidance to regional and local authorities, organisations, communities and others associated with urban and regional planning and building development on the siting and construction of new buildings against aircraft noise intrusion and on the acoustical adequacy of existing buildings near aerodromes. It is noted that the standard is not intended to be applied for the purpose of assessing the effects of noise


from aircraft. AS2021:2015 generally uses the relevant Australian Noise Exposure Forecast (ANEF) for consideration of building sites as to being “acceptable”, “unacceptable “or “conditionally acceptable”. Where aerodrome usage (such as the White Gum Air Park) is confined to a small number of civil, non‐jet aircraft movements the production of an ANEF chart may not be justified and is unlikely to occur. In these cases, AS2021:2015 provides alternative noise metrics, which are contained in Appendix E of the standard and are summarised below in Table 1.

TABLE 1 – BUILDING SITE ACCEPTABILITY BASED ON AIRCRAFT NOISE LEVELS*

Number of Flights Per Day Aircraft Noise Level Expected at Building Site dB(A)

Acceptable Conditionally Acceptable Unacceptable

House, home unit, flat, caravan park, school, university, hospital, nursing home

>30 <70 70‐75 >75

15‐30 <80 80‐85 >85

<15 <90 90‐95 >95

Hotel, motel, hostel, public building

>30 <75 75‐80 >80

15‐30 <85 85‐90 >90

<15 <95 95‐100 >100

Commercial Building

>30 <80 80‐85 >85

15‐30 <90 90‐95 >95

<15 <100 100‐105 >105

*The values in Table 1 are based on a small aerodrome with a small number of civil, non‐jet aircraft movements. They should not be used in any other circumstance.

Appropriate Criteria Based on the above information, the appropriate criteria for this assessment has been based on the recommendations contained in AS2021:2015. As the White Gum Air Park, has around 15‐30 flights per day, the acceptable noise level for surround buildings types (house) would be <80 dB(A) LAmax and conditionally acceptable 80‐85 dB(A) LAmax.

4. MEASUREMENTS

To enable the assessment of noise emissions from the Whit Gum Air Park, noise level measurements were carried out on the 16th June 2017 and continuously from the 7th to the 11th July 2017. Noise level measurements were conducted using two methods. The first method involved utilising two Ngara loggers recording continuous noise levels at two different locations. The noise monitors recorded continuous noise levels from the 7th to 11th July 2017. The first logger was setup at the northern boundary of Lot 2308, near to the closest neighbouring residential receiver. The second unit was positioned on the southern boundary of Lot 2308. Both loggers were set to record continuous noise levels for the assessment period and were time synchronised so that the noise levels at each location were comparable. Notations for aircraft movements and type over this period were made by the operators of the facility and have been provided for information in Table 2. Monitoring locations and pictures of the monitors are shown in Figure 1 and 2 below.


TABLE 2 – AIRCRAFT MOVEMENT LOG SAT 8TH TO MONDAY 10TH JULY 2017

Date Time Aircraft Runway

Saturday 8th July 2017

12:30 Ultralight Zodiac Arrival Runway 27

13:00 Ultralight Zodiac Departure Runway 27

Sunday 9th July 2017

08:00 Microlight Departure Runway 09


08:45 Microlight Arrival Runway 09



15:15 Ultralight Foxbat Departure Runway 27


16:15 Ultralight Foxbat Arrival Runway 09


Monday 10th July 2017

11:00 Cessna Touch And Go Runway 09

FIGURE 1 – CONTINUOUS MONITORING LOCATIONS


FIGURE 2 – MONITORING LOCATION PICTURES

The second method of measurement was short term hand held noise level measurements using a Svan 948 integrated sound and vibration level meter. These measurements were carried out in the near field to an operating aircraft at various operating parameters. The aircraft measured was an Aeroprakt A22 Foxbat with a Rotax 912, 100 Horsepower motor. Noise levels within 1 to 3 metres of the aircraft were measured to allow calculation of the sound power levels. During the measurements, the aircraft was run at maximum rpm to allow for the highest noise level. Additionally, noise level measurements were conducted when the aircraft was running through the prefight checks (higher than idle operations), taxiing in and around the runway, and take‐off and landing operations. Pictures of the measurement position and aircraft are shown in Figure 3.

Monitor A View At

Boundary

Monitor A View Towards

Res A

Monitor B View South

Monitor B View North


FIGURE 3 – FOXBAT AIRCRAFT NOISE MEASUREMENTS

Weather conditions during the course of the measurements were observed as calm (wind) and cool temperatures with some cloud cover. This was confirmed on the Bureau of Meteorology web site which recorded a daily observation of calm and cool conditions.


5. MEASURED RESULTS

Based on the analysis of the measured noise levels from the White Gum Air Park operations, noise levels at various locations have been determined. Detailed representation of results in the form of graphical plots are contained in Appendix B.

5.1 OBSERVED NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS

The resultant noise levels from hand held, observed measurements of a Foxbat aircraft are contained in Table 3 below.

TABLE 3 MEASURED NOISE LEVELS AEROPRAKT FOXBAT AIRCRAFT dB(A)

Operating Parameter Distance LAsmax Comments

Checking 2m 82.5 On Ground Right Side

Full Revs 2m 2m 101.7 On Ground Right Side

Full Revs Rear 1m 1m 93.8 On Ground Tail Side

Take Off 6m Side 6m 97.3 To Side of Runway

Touch and Go (pass at 20m high) 6m to side runway

6m 73.3 To Side of Runway

Landing 6m side 6m 73 To Side of Runway

Ground moving past (Taxiing) 60m either side of measurement location

6m 72.8 To Side of Runway

Additional to the overall noise level measured (Table 3), time history noise levels were recorded for each operating parameter. The time history allows for analysis of the duration of the activity. Figure 4 details a graphical plot of the time history for an aircraft to pass by while taxiing on the runway. The measurement location for this event remained stationary, with the measurement carried out when the aircraft was approximately 60m away, and continued until 60m past the measurement point.

FIGURE 4 – FOXBAT AIRCRAFT NOISE MEASUREMENTS TIME HISTORY ‐ TAXIING


5.2 CONTINUOUS NOISE MONITORING

Results of the continuous noise monitoring have been summarised in Table 4, with the graphical example contained in Figure 5 for Sunday 9th July (highest amount of aircraft movements). Noise level data was correlated against the known times for an aircraft event as per the log provided previously in Table 2. For the graphical plots the aircraft type and landing airstrip over the duration of the monitoring have been noted for comparison of the noise levels.

TABLE 3 MEASURED NOISE LEVELS dB(A)

Date Time / Aircraft Type and Runway

Noise Level LAmax dB(A)

Logger A (Northern Boundary)

Logger B (Southern Boundary)

Saturday 8th July 2017 12:30 ‐ Ultralight Zodiac Arrival Runway 27 47 51

13:00 ‐ Ultralight Zodiac Departure Runway 27 52 55

Sunday 9th July 2017

08:00 ‐ Microlight Departure Runway 09 66 66


08:45 ‐ Microlight Arrival Runway 09 64 72



15:15 ‐ Ultralight Foxbat departure Runway 27 68 62


16:15 ‐ Ultralight Foxbat arrival Runway 09 57 69


Monday 10th July 2017 11:00 ‐ Cessna touch and go Runway 09 66 58

Note: To allow for any time disparity between the log and the monitored noise levels, the

maximum noise level for five minutes either side of the noted time has been used.

FIGURE 5 – MONITORED NOISE LEVEL COMPARISON AGAINST KNOWN AIRCRAFT EVENT TIMES


6. MODELLING

Noise emissions from the operating White Gum Air Park was modelled with the computer programme SoundPlan. Sound power levels used for the calculations are based on the measured noise levels conducted on site (Table 3). Two modelling scenarios were developed for the White Gum Air Park operations being:

Scenario 1 – Foxbat Aircraft Take off, any runway; Scenario 2 – Foxbat aircraft taxiing, any runway or hanger location (including future hangers).

The Aeropark Foxbat aircraft has been used as the basis of the noise modelling. From information provided, this is understood to be a representation of the worst‐case noise levels for the facility. The modelled scenarios have been calibrated against the measured noise levels conducted on site. It is noted that to allow for any noise associated with the additional hangers, aircraft noise sources have been located at all the future hangers, not yet constructed. This allows for assessment of noise for current and future operations. The source height for scenario 1 is 1m above ground and scenario 2 allows for the aircraft noise source to be 1m to 150m (500 feet) to represent a take‐off operation. The receiver locations have been based on the aerial image (Figure 6) for the area surrounding the air park.

FIGURE 6 – RECEIVER LOCATIONS

Weather conditions for modelling were as stipulated in the DER’s” Draft Guidelines on Environmental Noise for Prescribed Premises” and for the night period as listed in Table 4.


TABLE 4 – WEATHER CONDITIONS

Condition Day

Temperature 20°C

Relative humidity 50%

Pasquill Stability Class E

Wind speed 4 m/s*

* From sources, towards receivers. Resultant noise levels for the for the above scenarios are summarised in Table 5 for known receiver locations. The graphical noise contour plots are contained in Appendix D.

TABLE 5 – MODELLED NOISE LEVELS DB(A) LAMAX

Receiver Location Scenario 1

Ground Operations Scenario 2

Take‐off Operations

Residence A 47 71

Residence B 13 43

Residence C 0 31

Residence D 8 37

Residence E 18 45

7. DISCUSSION

To determine noise received at the neighbouring residence from the White Gum Air Park, noise emissions from aircraft operating at the park have been based on the results of noise modelling, which has been calibrated against hand held observed noise level measurements. The nearest noise sensitive premises (highly noise sensitive) is located approximately 100m from the centre of runway 09 towards the north. At this location, the LAmax noise level of the worst case (take‐off) operation has been determined to be 71 dB(A) for the most common aircraft type using the runway. For ground activities, such as aircraft taxiing around site, the LAmax noise level is 47 at the same premise. The usage of the White Gum Air Park by air craft is intermittent. Over the course of the study period, logging of aircraft flights resulted in aircraft movements of generally 2 to 3 movements during weekdays and 6 to 9 movements during weekends. Each landing or take off was counted as 1 movement. As previously explained, there is no criteria to relate the noise levels to, however, using AS2021:2015 as a guide to building acceptability, the highest assessable noise level at the nearest residential building for an airfield having 15‐30 aircraft movements per day is a noise level of <80 dB(A). This can be compared against the noise level at Residence A which has been assessed at 71 dB(A). Whilst the current aircraft movements are at around 9 on the busiest day, it is unlikely that the additional hangers will significantly impact on the quantity of movements. To future proof the assessment and allow for the noise levels associated with an increase in traffic for the additional hangers, the use of the 15‐30 aircraft movements criteria would be considered appropriate.


8. CONCLUSION

Even though noise emanating from aircraft complies with the stated criteria, to formalise the operations of the White Gum Air Park, it is recommended that a management plan (which includes noise) is developed. This management plan provides a level of security to the facilities operations and to other stakeholders which may be affected by the operations. Information which would be contained within the management plan would be generally as follows:

Outline of operations, mission statement, background etc.

Management of operational activities.

Flight paths.

Standard hours of operation.

Fly Neighbourly Agreement.

Flight training guidelines.

Noise complaint process.

Noise assessment and monitoring.

Land use planning for future development.

Communication and consultation.

APPENDIX A

LOCALITY PLAN – SITE LAYOUT

Herring Storer Acoustics Page 1 of 1 Our ref: 22023‐1‐17117 Appendix A

FIGURE A1 – WHITE GUM AIR PARK LAYOUT PLAN

APPENDIX B

CONTINOUS NOISE MONITORING RESULTS

Herring Storer Acoustics Page 1 of 2 Our Ref: 22023‐1‐17117 Appendix B

Herring Storer Acoustics Page 2 of 2 Our Ref: 22023‐1‐17117 Appendix B

APPENDIX C

HAND HELD NOISE RESULTS

Herring Storer Acoustics Page 1 of 4 Our Ref: 22023‐1‐17117 Appendix C




APPENDIX D

NOISE CONTOUR PLOTS

Herring Storer Acoustics Page 1 of 2 Our Ref: 22023‐1‐17117 Appendix D

Herring Storer Acoustics Page 2 of 2 Our Ref: 22023‐1‐17117 Appendix D

Bushfire Attack Level Assessment Report Prepared by a BPAD Accredited Practitioner

AS 3959 BAL Assessment Report This report has been prepared by an Accredited BPAD Practitioner using the Simplified Procedure (Method 1) as detailed in Section 2 of AS 3959 – 2009 (Incorporating Amendment Nos 1, 2 and 3). FPA Australia makes no warranties as to the accuracy of the information provided in the report. All enquiries related to the information and conclusions presented in this report must be made to the BPAD Accredited Practitioner. Property Details and Description of Works

Address Details Unit no

Street no

Lot no 2308

Street name / Plan Reference Cameron Road

Suburb Malebelling

State WA

Postcode 6302

Local government area

York

Main BCA class of the building Class 10a

Use(s) of the building

Aircraft Hangers

Description of the building or works

Proposed Aircraft Hangers

Report Details

Report / Job Number J004703

Report Version 1

Assessment Date 15 September 2016

Report Date 29 September 2016

BPAD Accredited Practitioner Details

Name John Greenwood

BPAD 336633

29 September 2016

Authorised Practitioner Stamp

Company Details

Reliance on the assessment and determination of the Bushfire Attack Level contained in this report should not extend beyond a period of 12 months from the date of issue of the report. If this report was issued more than 12 months ago, it is recommended that the validity of the determination be confirmed with the Accredited Practitioner and where required an updated report issued.

CERTIFIED

1/10/2016

P a g e | 2

BAL Assessment Report

Site Assessment & Site Plans The assessment of this site / development was undertaken on 15 September 2016 by a BPAD Accredited Practitioner for the purpose of determining the Bushfire Attack Level in accordance with AS 3959 - 2009 Simplified Procedure (Method 1).

CERTIFIED

1/10/2016

P a g e | 3


Vegetation Classification

All vegetation within 100m of the site / proposed development was classified in accordance with Clause 2.2.3 of AS 3959-2009. Each distinguishable vegetation plot with the potential to determine the Bushfire Attack Level is identified below.

Photo ID: 1 Plot: 1

Vegetation Classification or Exclusion Clause

Excludable - 2.2.3.2(f) Low Threat Vegetation

Description / Justification for Classification

Plot 1 refers to a orchard on the neighbouring property, which has been excluded as being managed and low threat.

Photo ID: 2 Plot: 1




An alternative view of Plot 1.

CERTIFIED

1/10/2016

P a g e | 4


Photo ID: 3 Plot: 2




Plot 2 is an area of low threat managed grassland surrounding the proposed buildings.

Photo ID: 4 Plot: 2




An alternative view of Plot 2.

CERTIFIED

1/10/2016

P a g e | 5


Relevant Fire Danger Index The fire danger index for this site has been determined in accordance with Table 2.1 or otherwise determined in accordance with a jurisdictional variation applicable to the site.

Fire Danger Index

FDI 40 Table 2.4.5

FDI 50 Table 2.4.4

FDI 80 Table 2.4.3

FDI 100 Table 2.4.2

Potential Bushfire Impacts The potential bushfire impact to the site / proposed development from each of the identified vegetation plots are identified below.

Plot Vegetation Classification Effective Slope Separation (m) BAL 1 Excludable – Clause 2.2.3.2(f) - - BAL – LOW 2 Excludable – Clause 2.2.3.2(f) - - BAL – LOW

Table 1: BAL Analysis Determined Bushfire Attack Level (BAL) The Determined Bushfire Attack Level (highest BAL) for the site / proposed development has been determined in accordance with clause 2.2.6 of AS 3959-2009 using the above analysis.

Determined Bushfire Attack Level BAL – LOW

CERTIFIED

1/10/2016

P a g e | 6


Appendix 1: Plans and Drawings

Plans and drawings relied on to determine the bushfire attack level

Drawing / Plan Description Landscape Plan

Drawing Number D2015-0300

Revision 3 Date of Revision 30/11/2015

CERTIFIED

1/10/2016

Documents

WHITE GUM AIR PARK - Shire of York